Skip to main content

Reply to "The AMB Timing system"

There a couple timers here in Upstate NY that have the AMB system. I have seen it in action and of course, it is very good technology.

From what I understand from talking to those AMB timers in my area, is that the chip return isn't a problem. I think it is a function of having the ankle strap and only using race day distribution of chips. As a ChampionChip timer, I can live with a chip loss of 1% from my each event I time (which is what I normally expect to see) - its just the cost of doing business, but if I were using AMB, that would be too much of a risk.

It will be interesting to see what develops in the next year or so with all of these competing systems. There are many established timers in the ChampionChip network that are heavily invested in the ChampionChip "Classic" system (as it is now called) that I wonder how immediate the penetration of new systems (the CC active and CC high frequency) will be. For that reason, there may not be so much an incentive to buy into the new technologies right now.

However, for someone that wants to get into the timing business without much expenditure in equipment, purchasing an active system might be just the right option. AMB does allow its timers to rent chips from each other and that could be a significant advantage in the marketplace in the years to come.


However, I don't think there is a definite advantage of using one system over the other with regards to timing and accomplishing the task of producing results. Sure, with active chips, the read efficiency approaches 100% with just one system. Sounds good, except that even with passive cheaper chips used by the CC Classic system, the read efficiency is 99.8 % to 99.9% on the primary system (the first set of mats). So figure 1 or 2 misses per 1000 finishers on the set of mats. Using the secondary system, of course, you approach 100%.
×
×
×
×